[cies]

Any food "additive" (including all chemicals used in farming) should be listed, carcinogen or not.

The fact that products can be sold as "cucumber" but actually have a long list of chems on their skin is a very dark practice. See how companies abused their power when ingredient lists where not enforced by law. Or how tobacco comps are still abusing their freedom not to list ingredients. This malpractice disgusts me daily.

[emodendroket]

I kind of agree. I'm not really swayed by arguments that consumers shouldn't have information because they'd use it to make mistaken decisions. Let them; that's not my business.

[SpicyLemonZest]

The concern is that disclosures can be used selectively, to make unpopular businesses embarrass themselves while favored ones skate by. If we make people slap “contains glyphosate” on produce, is there any realistic chance that organic produce will say “contains blood meal” or apples will say “contains beeswax”?

[cies]

Perfect. As a conscious buyer and vegan believe I deserve to know! (and not by calling some office during office hours, but right there where I buy).

[craftinator]

Thank you for this, I hadn't thought about it from this point of view. One thought is that growers have to disclose all additives? In the wine industry, it's common during particularly bad grape years to sugar dose the wine as it ferments. In France they require vintners to disclose this, and other major modifications. Could we use something similar with growers? It would be AMAZING for a number of data driven sciences, having access to all additives used to grow different items

[SpicyLemonZest]

I think that'd be a reasonable rule, but Roundup isn't an additive. It's an herbicide that's sprayed on the plants as they're growing, and isn't supposed to be present in the final product in more than trace amounts.

If growers had to disclose everything that makes its way into the product they're selling, insect parts and rat dung would be much higher up the list than Roundup.

[gumby]

That cuts both ways. Look at California Prop 65: it’s so widely applicable that the posted signs are ubiquitous and thus meaningless.

I don’t have a fix for this problem and I do have a bias for more info; just saying it isn’t obvious.

[perl4ever]

Those warnings are useless not because they're ubiquitous, but because they don't specify the reason/ingredient. I'm not sure whether that's allowed by the law, or it's just that the law isn't fully enforced.

So I don't think you're making an argument against disclosure, just against bad law or scofflaws.

[emodendroket]

Also, a neutral description of the things used without a warning per se should be fine for consumers who care about avoiding them.

[perl4ever]

I feel like the phrase "neutral description of the things used" might be loaded.

Everybody seems to have "warnings" these days like "Cancer and reproductive harm". That's not a warning or a description.